THE COST PER RESPONDER OF BIMEKIZUMAB VERSUS RISANKIZUMAB IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PSA)
Author(s)
Kevin Lock, PhD1, Flore Decuypere, MSc-MIM2, Melanie Kollen, PhD3, Navin Bithal, BA1, Esther Fabre, PharmD3, Stefano Maratia, MSc4, Luis Moeckel, PhD5, Vincenzo Cilento, MSc6, Paloma Charlesworth, MPH7, Oliver Burn, MSc7, Michael Frank Mørup, MSc8.
1UCB Pharma, Slough, United Kingdom, 2UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium, 3UCB Pharma, Courveboie, France, 4UCB Pharma, Madrid, Spain, 5UCB Pharma, Monheim am Rhein, Germany, 6UCB Pharma, Milan, Italy, 7Source Health Economics, London, United Kingdom, 8UCB Pharma, Copenhagen S, Denmark.
1UCB Pharma, Slough, United Kingdom, 2UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium, 3UCB Pharma, Courveboie, France, 4UCB Pharma, Madrid, Spain, 5UCB Pharma, Monheim am Rhein, Germany, 6UCB Pharma, Milan, Italy, 7Source Health Economics, London, United Kingdom, 8UCB Pharma, Copenhagen S, Denmark.
OBJECTIVES: This study estimated the cost-per-responder (CPR) of bimekizumab versus risankizumab in adults with active PsA, including patients with or without concomitant moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO), in Germany, France, UK, Italy, and Spain, across multiple outcomes, using results from the Phase 3b BE BOLD trial.
METHODS: Treatment-specific response rates at 16 weeks were derived using data from BE BOLD. Drug acquisition costs were estimated over the 16-week time horizon using dosing regimens as specified in product labels and country-specific unit prices (excluding any local discounts). Costs were weighted to account for patients with concomitant moderate-to-severe PsO who require a higher dose of bimekizumab (320mg vs 160mg) as per country-specific regulatory labels. CPR was calculated by multiplying the number needed to treat by the estimated treatment costs per patient. Threshold analyses were performed to estimate the maximum proportion of bimekizumab-treated patients receiving the higher dose at which the CPR remained lower than the corresponding CPR for risankizumab. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) were conducted.
RESULTS: Bimekizumab was associated with a lower CPR vs risankizumab for all countries and endpoints. For ACR50 response at week 16, the CPR for bimekizumab vs risankizumab was:
•Germany: €8,761 vs €16,715 •France: €7,679 vs €12,105 •UK: €10,946 vs €17,506 •Italy: €10,754 vs €17,895 •Spain: €11,981 vs €20,176
Consistent results were observed for MDA and PASI100 outcomes.
Threshold analyses showed that bimekizumab was associated with a lower CPR than risankizumab until the proportion of patients with concomitant PsO exceeded country-specific thresholds ranging from 73-100%. Risankizumab was only favourable under assumptions of PsO prevalence substantially higher than observed in clinical practice. Conclusions of the analysis were consistent across DSA.
CONCLUSIONS: The consistent cost-per-responder advantage observed across countries and outcomes supports the value of bimekizumab as a treatment option in diverse healthcare settings and may help inform clinical and economic decision-making in adults with active PsA.
METHODS: Treatment-specific response rates at 16 weeks were derived using data from BE BOLD. Drug acquisition costs were estimated over the 16-week time horizon using dosing regimens as specified in product labels and country-specific unit prices (excluding any local discounts). Costs were weighted to account for patients with concomitant moderate-to-severe PsO who require a higher dose of bimekizumab (320mg vs 160mg) as per country-specific regulatory labels. CPR was calculated by multiplying the number needed to treat by the estimated treatment costs per patient. Threshold analyses were performed to estimate the maximum proportion of bimekizumab-treated patients receiving the higher dose at which the CPR remained lower than the corresponding CPR for risankizumab. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) were conducted.
RESULTS: Bimekizumab was associated with a lower CPR vs risankizumab for all countries and endpoints. For ACR50 response at week 16, the CPR for bimekizumab vs risankizumab was:
•Germany: €8,761 vs €16,715 •France: €7,679 vs €12,105 •UK: €10,946 vs €17,506 •Italy: €10,754 vs €17,895 •Spain: €11,981 vs €20,176
Consistent results were observed for MDA and PASI100 outcomes.
Threshold analyses showed that bimekizumab was associated with a lower CPR than risankizumab until the proportion of patients with concomitant PsO exceeded country-specific thresholds ranging from 73-100%. Risankizumab was only favourable under assumptions of PsO prevalence substantially higher than observed in clinical practice. Conclusions of the analysis were consistent across DSA.
CONCLUSIONS: The consistent cost-per-responder advantage observed across countries and outcomes supports the value of bimekizumab as a treatment option in diverse healthcare settings and may help inform clinical and economic decision-making in adults with active PsA.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE351
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies, Trial-Based Economic Evaluation
Disease
Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal)